What I'm suggesting is that our fallen nature served as a catalyst. That the imputed sins and tendencies are much greater in effect, in terms of making the temptations so much stronger than ours, seems possible, because Christ took the sins and tendencies of billions of people upon Him, but He only assumed one fallen nature. But without assuming that fallen nature, the impact of those imputed sins and tendencies would have been lacking.

For example, when Satan presented to Christ the kingdoms of this world as a prize, Christ turned away, rather than gaze upon them. Why? Because having these kingdoms was something pleasant for Him to gaze upon, and doing so would have been dangerous; He could have fallen into temptation. But what interest would such kingdoms have for a being who did not take a fallen nature?

Again, the big problem I see with the position being suggested that Christ took a nature without inherited tendencies to sin is the historical one.

1.Every contemporary of Ellen White who spoke of Christ's having taken a sinful human nature did so with the meaning that Christ's nature had (by way of inheritance) tendencies or inclinations to sin. One would have to postulate that Ellen White used the term "sinful nature" to mean:
a.Something different than it meant to any other human
b.The same thing as what everybody else meant by the term "sinless nature"

2.One would have to postulate that Ellen White thought it was very important to write an unpublished letter to an obscure individual in Australia to correct a point of doctrine, but not important enough to inform people with whom she was preaching side by side, that were making presentations at the General Conference session, that were writing articles in the church's papers, and publishing books purporting to present what SDA's believe.

3.One would have to postulate that Ellen White would be able to endorse a sermon with statements such as "truth was separated from error," "Prescott has spoken ... at the Armendale campmeeting under inspiration of the Holy Spirit" "The inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth" in regards to a sermon that was discussing that Christ took our fallen nature! The title of the sermon was "The Word Became Flesh" and the theme was that Christ took our fallen nature.

These are just a few of the historical problems. I've spoken of others elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here.

I see often repeated this same error of attempting to interpret inspired words (the same thing is done with Scripture; in particular, interpretations are often suggested of Paul's writings which would have been impossible, given the historical context) as if one could just parse words with no thought whatsoever given to the historical realities of the situation. Ellen White did not write in a vacuum.

It is clear that Ellen White's contemporaries believed that she taught that Christ took a nature which had hereditary inclinations to sin, and that she knew this to be the case. It defies credulity that she would have taken no steps to correct this misconception of her teachings on this point, had her colleagues been misinterpreting her position.

The problem, Tammy, is that the interpretation that is suggested of this unpublished letter does not agree with the historical realities of the situation. What you are suggesting would involve giving greater weight to an unpublished letter than to the book "The Desire of Ages."

For example, Stephen Haskell, in quoted from the Desire of Ages:



So we see that the "Desire of Ages", in the eyes of those who worked side by side with Ellen White in combating errors of Christology, teaches that Christ took a "fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations," which is in contrast to how the Baker letter has been interpreted by some.

The new mind and heart is what Jesus implants within people when they complete the process of rebirth. It is during the process of converting from worldliness to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded that the Holy Spirit reveals their sinful habits and practices in light of the cross.

After they have confronted, confessed, and crucified everything that stands in the way of them experiencing the miracle of rebirth - self dies and they are rise to newness of life. The question is, therefore, which sinful habits and practices must be crucified before they can experience rebirth, before they can receive the implanted mind and heart of the new man?

You seem to think there are all kinds of sinful habits and practices that the Holy Spirit does not reveal before they experience the miracle of rebirth. You seem to be saying that the Holy Spirit waits until after they are born again to reveal the rest of their sinful habits and practices, that He is too kind and merciful to reveal certain sins because they are unwilling and able to confront them, to confess them, and to crucify them.

When I ask for examples of sinful habits and practices the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after they are born again you list things like - saying "gee", being impatient, being proud, nursing old wounds, breaking the Sabbath, and believing things about God that are untrue. Given the types of things you list, I am led to ask, What did He reveal to them?


What does this mean to you, Tom? You seem to disagree with what I think it means. Does it mean we regularly become aware of new, hitherto unknown sinful habits and practices that must be confessed and crucified?


Did Jesus have to regularly renounce inherent selfishness?


And you have a knack for ignoring comments and questions. Plus, you often assume things about me that are wrong and unkind. Please, Tom, simply address the issue and avoid the unsavory insults. Thank you.

Pre-fall man was not tempted from within like post-fall man is tempted from within. The origin of internally generated temptations is fallen flesh nature. Satan could be dead and gone and they would still be tempted from within. All external forms of temptation could cease to exist and they would still be tempted from within. This is the main difference between pre-fall and post-fall man.

Jesus was tempted in all points like post-fall man is tempted. This must necessarily include internally generated temptations. It cannot only apply to eternally generated temptations. The reason Jesus was able to be tempted in all points like we are tempted is due to the fact He possessed sinful flesh nature the same as we do. He took both form and nature of fallen man. He realized the strength of perverted appetites and passions. He assumed sinful human nature's temptations - our internal foes, the sins that clamor for mastery.

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan's temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. {4aSG 115.3}

"He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and unholy passion which controlled the world and had brought upon man inexpressible suffering. {Con 36.2}

"He assumed human nature, with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations. (3SM 132)

1.MM, what you are describing in regards to being born again doesn't fit with reality. I was born again when I was 15, and even thought it's been many years, I remember the experience well. A girl presented the Gospel to me, I recognized that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I was convinced these things were true, and realized I had a decision to make. Would I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior or not? Thankfully, I decided in favor.

There was a complete change me, there's no doubt about that. My friends and family couldn't help but notice it. I was interested in reading Scripture, fellowshipping with other Christians, and discovering all I could about Christ.

However, there was none of the long, drawn out process you seem to be describing. I was aware that I was a sinner, and I needed Christ. That was enough. *After* being born again, the Holy Spirit started revealing things to me in regards to my character. There was much that needed changing (and still, believe it or not, I'm still not perfect).

I see nothing in my experience, or the experience of anybody I know, or have read about, that corresponds to what you are suggesting. When I read what others have written about justification by faith, like Waggoner, or Wesley, or Luther, I see that their descriptions match mine.

Ellen White endorsed the teachings of these great men, and I see her writings in regards to justification by faith to be in harmony with theirs.

I see the experience of the publican to be straightforward and easy to understand:





He revealed that they were sinners and needed Christ.



She speaks of our confessing like this: "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self." You have suggested that this means that we keep our bodies under subjection, something like that. I think what she means by saying that we should pray "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self." is that we should pray, "Save me in spite of myself, my weak, unchristlike self."

I have no trouble praying this prayer. It expresses the desire of my heart. As EGW describes, if I am saved at last, I have no doubt that it will be due entirely to God's grace, and in spite of my wicked, unChristlike self.

Can you pray the prayer she suggests? If not, this highlights our differences. If so, we may be able to come into harmony on some things.



If I can phrase the question this way, "Did Jesus have to regularly renounce selfishness?" the answer is "yes," because He assumed our nature and assumed our sins. If by "inherent" you have in mind Christ's sinless nature, the answer is no. If you have in mind Christ's sinful nature, and the sins He assumed in that nature, the answer is yes.

A difficulty I see in the position you are suggesting is that it appears to me that you believe that the more we become like Christ, the less our experience resembles His in regards to repentance. That is, as EGW states things, the closer we come to Christ, the *more* we will repent. However, as you see Christ's experience (please correct any errors here of my characterization of your position), Christ did not repent at all. So as we become more like Him, our experience, in regards to repentance, becomes less and less like His.



You write, "you often assume things about me that are wrong and unkind." Like what? Please don't answer this publicly, but send me a private message. If I've treated you unfairly or unkindly, please let me know how, so I can make amends.

MM, I've pointed out to you many times this thing you do in twisting meanings around. This is not meant as an insult, although I do recognize that they way I wrote things was not kind, and I apologize for that.

It's truly tiring to have to keep rephrasing the things you write. Why can't you just quote what I write? Or, if you're going to rephrase it in your own words, use some common sense, and put it in some way that has some possibility of actually representing what I believe.

I'll give Rosangela as an example. There are many things that she disagrees with me about, but she makes a strong effort to put things accurately, in terms of representing what I believe. Rarely do I have to correct her. And when I do, she accepts the correction, and rephrases how she puts things.

Similarly I attempt to accurately represent her viewpoint (and yours) and not present them in an uncharitable way (I'm not saying I'm perfect at this, but I do try. Almost 100% of the posts I write you I edit, very often adjusting the way I phrase things).

I'm singling her out because we've had so many, and drawn out, discussions, most of which you've been witness to.

Back to our discussion, nowhere have I spoken of the Holy Spirit "keeping us in darkness and ignorance." Surely you can see that this is an unflattering description, can't you?

And you write these sorts of things over and over again, despite repeated protestations.

So, in conclusion:

1.Please accept my apology for bring this to your attention in an uncharitable and unkind manner.

2.Please don't do this anymore.

Tom, please note that I did not misrepresent your view. Instead, I was talking about what the SOP quote does not mean. You have made it abundantly clear to me in the past you do not believe the Holy Spirit keeps us in darkness or ignorance regarding certain sinful habits and practices.

You have made it clear that the Holy Spirit waits to make us aware of certain sinful habits and practices until He feels we are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify them. In the meantime, we ignorantly sin against God and man. We are in clueless darkness concerning certain sinful habits and practices.

But, you are quick to say that the sinful habits and practices the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to us are not the types of sins that cause people around us to conclude Christianity is a joke. The sins He winks at and overlooks until the time is right to tell us are the innocuous, less offensive sins, like saying "gee" or behaving in a way the makes someone think we are being impatient.

She refers to conversion as "the result of long wooing by the Spirit of God,--a patient, protracted process." The following quotes describe her view nicely:

SD 300
The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

DA 172
Little by little, perhaps unconsciously to the receiver, impressions are made that tend to draw the soul to Christ. These may be received through meditating upon Him, through reading the Scriptures, or through hearing the word from the living preacher. Suddenly, as the Spirit comes with more direct appeal, the soul gladly surrenders itself to Jesus. By many this is called sudden conversion; but it is the result of long wooing by the Spirit of God,--a patient, protracted process. {DA 172.3}

DA 330
"Learn of Me," says Jesus; "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest." We are to enter the school of Christ, to learn from Him meekness and lowliness. Redemption is that process by which the soul is trained for heaven. This training means a knowledge of Christ. It means emancipation from ideas, habits, and practices that have been gained in the school of the prince of darkness. The soul must be delivered from all that is opposed to loyalty to God. {DA 330.2}


In light of the quotes posted above, are you sure you experienced the miracle of rebirth the instant you believed in Jesus? She says, "impressions are made that tend to draw the soul to Christ. These may be received through meditating upon Him, through reading the Scriptures, or through hearing the word from the living preacher." These are things that happen before rebirth occurs.

Also, you seem to feel you are not perfect yet because the Holy Spirit still hasn't revealed things about your character that need changing. Are these things that will keep you out of heaven if they are not confessed and crucified? Or, can you take them with you to heaven and work on changing them there? The reason I ask is due to the following insight:

4T 429
The characters formed in this life will determine the future destiny. When Christ shall come, He will not change the character of any individual. Precious, probationary time is given to be improved in washing our robes of character and making them white in the blood of the Lamb. To remove the stains of sin requires the work of a lifetime. Every day renewed efforts in restraining and denying self are needed. Every day there are new battles to fight and victories to be gained. Every day the soul should be called out in earnest pleading with God for the mighty victories of the cross. {4T 429.2}

LDE 295
If you would be a saint in heaven you must first be a saint on earth. The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. Our daily lives are determining our destiny. Defects of character must be repented of and overcome through the grace of Christ, and a symmetrical character must be formed while in this probationary state, that we may be fitted for the mansions above.--13MR 82 (1891). {LDE 295.1}

Yes, I'm sure.





It's not possible to believe in Jesus and not be born again, because to believe in Jesus is to be born again. That's what the phrase "believe in Jesus" means. It means, to be converted, to be born again, to be justified by faith, to be pardoned, to have the law written in the heart, to be under the New Covenant; to be in Christ; these are all synonyms.



She said these "may" be received through the items she mentioned, but I wasn't doing any of these things. I have no doubt that the Spirit was drawing me unconsciously, but it way by other mechanisms. God is not limited in how He works.



No, I didn't say this.



To me the issue is very simple. If we were in God's presence, would we like Him? Would we want to be around Him? Would we long to be in His presence? Would we wish to live by the principles of His government?

GC speaks of this:



So I'll be in the one group or the other; either I'll long to flee from God, or long to be in His presence. My disposition one way or the other will decide my destiny.

She also writes:



What should motivate us in following Christ is not whether or not we will be saved, but the loveliness of His character.

I went back and looked, and you were responding to what I had said, so the natural reading of your remark is that you were responding to my position. That is, the thing immediately preceding your comments was not an SOP quote, but something I said.



The Holy Spirit doesn't keep anyone in darkness or ignorance. Our ignorance is due to ourselves, not to the Holy Spirit.



There wouldn't be much point in bringing something to someone's attention that they are unable to understand, would there?



I never said anything about people concluding Christianity is a joke. I wish you wouldn't do this. You recast the way I put things in a distasteful way.



This whole way of looking at things is moot, I think. The important thing is our relationship to God. Do we love Him? What do we think of Him? What do we think of the principles of His government, which is to say, the way He treats people? Is it attractive? Is that the way we want to live? Do we want to be His friend?

By beholding Christ, we become changed into His image. The Holy Spirit will reveal to us the behaviors we need to focus on in due time. If we offend someone by being unChristlike is some way, He will bring that to our attention.

Tom, I just realized we are off topic, so I went back to see where we got off track. The basis our current discussion is the following exchange between Rosangela and I:


I asked Rosangela if the clamorings of fallen flesh nature contaminate character, and she answered, I don't know. Then she switched gears and spoke about depraved hearts. She believes the origin of selfish impulses, attitudes, thoughts is a depraved heart. She does not believe sinful flesh nature can generate or communicate them.

You, on the other hand, believe something different, right? But I'm not sure what you believe. What is the difference between a depraved, unregenerate heart and sinful flesh nature? Or, are they one and the same thing?

Also, what is the difference between our old heart and the new heart Jesus implants when we are born again?

And, how does all this relate to the human heart and human nature of Jesus?